The project I'm currently working on uses Nant build scripts for the continuous integration server builds. The build file is stored in a folder in the repository.
I find it annoying having to browse to it via windows explorer rather than it being available from the visual studio solution when I need to make changes.
I was wondering if there is any reason not to include it somewhere in the solution for ease of access? If this isn't daft where would you store it in the solution? Would you create a dummy non building project for holding these type of resources?
Thanks,
Neil
Go right ahead and add it to your solution file.
You will either get, or have to create manually, a folder for it, but I think that when you add it you will get a folder called Solution Items.
As far as I have seen, there is no real reason to not have them along with your project solution. In one project, since there were lots of build files, it made sense to create a separate solution for them.
Related
Our projects in our company are all built based off a thing we call a 'Project Scaffold'. It's got all the base required code for all sites, basic folder structure and all other things similar to that.
At the moment, we have a repository for this 'Project Scaffold' and each time we want to create a new project, we copy this project into a new folder, and rename all occurrences of the name 'ProjectScaffold' within the project. As you can tell, this is quite time consuming and can sometimes cause errors if we miss out a single occurrence of 'ProjectScaffold'.
This project will need to have all the default dependencies which is why having a full project that we copy is working for us at the moment.
I have looked into the possibility of creating a visual studio template but I can't seem to find a good way of accomplishing it.
We have been thinking if there was a way to possibly implement it through a NuGet Package, however I feel as if this would be either extremely difficult or impossible.
If possible, it would also be something that would be usable in Visual Studio 2011
Simply File-->Export Template :)
You can then customize the generated zip file to suit your needs.
More on this on the Creating Project and Item templates on msdn
I could use some advice.
I'm in the process of adopting subversion, and I'm trying to put some existing Visual Studio 2010 projects into a repository. I have the current version of AhnkSvn.
The projects I have are organised as;
VS2010_projects\Project_A
VS2010_projects\Project_B
VS2010_projects\Project_C
VS2010_projects\Common_code
Where Project_A, Project_B and Project_C may all refer to one or more files in "Common_Code"
In visual studio, these files will have been added using "add as link".
There is no actual project in "Common_code" just a collection of useful code files, which we're likely to re-use in different projects.
(If we have a module or class which is re-used in various projects, then we often keep a single master copy in 'common-code', and link to it.)
Visual Studio has no problem with this.
When I add any of the actual projects to subversion, all of their own files are added just fine, but the linked files are ignored.
(And as a consequence, if I then get a working copy of those files, then it's just the project files which get handled, I won't get a copy of the linked files.)
If I right click on any of the linked files, I the only subversion options I get are to refresh their status or to select the working folder.
I was wondering what the correct way to handle this situation was ?
Any advice would be much appreciated
Thanks !
Robert
if I understand your question correctly then I think SVN is acting in the desired way. A linked file is merely a reference to another file. That reference exists only in the .csproj file which is checked in. It would not make sense to have two copies of the same file in source control, and it could lead to versioning issues. The first time you checkout your repository doing a build on your projects should copy the files from Common_code to the places that they're linked.
As an aside we've had alot of random issues with .csproj linked files and SVN, and so try to avoid linked files where possible. A better way to re-use files across projects is obviously just to embed them in a library and then reference that library. This should work fine with the exception of certain files like Javascript/CSS.
Also you may want to check out SVN externals, a workmate mentioned this can be used to share common libraries between multiple projects, although as a disclaimer I haven't tried this myself and can't comment on the merits or drawbacks of the approach.
Thanks for the advice, I actually did something similar to your suggestion.
I didn't want to make a full blown library, but I did make up a dummy project, and put my shared files into that.
Then I added the dummy project to the repository.
AhnkSvn now seems to be satisfied that the linked files are under subversion control, and seems to handle them just fine.
(I haven't added any reference to the dummy project to my existing projects - they just use the linked files as before - but now AhnkSvn shows me their status, and allows me to get the latest version, and commit changes.)
I can see the case for having a proper library - but that would have meant modifying a large body of existing projects. This approach lets me get up and running with Subversion without requiring those changes first.
In the main project of my VS Solution I have a Resources folder with some required external tools. When building and publishing the solution, I get a .\Resources* with all required files there.
So far so good.
However I have to move some files to the parent directory.
My first attempt was do so with the Post Build Events. It works and does move them the correct folder.
Nevertheless in the publish output they still appear in the Resources folder and I need them in the parent one :/
Is there any way to setup the target output path for resources in Visual Studio?
After some research and experimental, I solved my problem.
Still, here's what I learned in the process.
The first attempt was adding the file to the project root and mark it as a resource. After publishing it worked. But having those files in the project root its lame.
Since I needed some *.exe files compiled in another VS solution, added them as a project reference. Gave it a try and it passed the "Publish" test. But still.. not the best way to do it.
After that, with some scripting and a post-build event, I copied the required files to the correct folder. Works.. but after publishing, they don't appear in the package.
However, there is still a possibility with the Mage tool:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/acz3y3te.aspx
This lead to some promissing experiments, however they ended up helping me realize how limited the MS ClickOnce is, so I decided to try other tools.
Here's a good start to follow:
What alternatives are there to ClickOnce?
I had a similar situation once. I found it became more trouble than it was worth to customize output paths and such in Visual Studio, to the extent that I wanted.
I ended up letting Visual Studio do its own thing with regards to file/project structure, and wrote a post-build script to copy everything that was needed into a final, 'publish-ready' directory.
I then set the execution target in Visual Studio to the new location, so I could run/debug as normal, but with the new folder that was organized how I needed it. Careful, I think this is a user project setting; so other developers will need to do this on their machines too, if they so desire.
I do recall changing some output paths and such to make the post-build script more simple. But changing things like that can lead to annoyances when you add new projects to the solution; you might need to configure them to match. It's all a trade-off :)
Two ideas:
Maybe you could move your resources into another project - a project just for resources - and then set their Build Action to Content and Copy To Output to true. Then reference this new project and build the solution. (This may not work as you want, just an idea).
Why not make your resources embedded resources instead. Keep them all within the Resources\ directory and access them programatically?
I've got a collection of HTML documentation that I'd like to add to my solution in Visual Studio. It's just a collection of files -- there are no build steps.
What's the best way to add this to my solution? In the past I've used a C# class library project and disabled it in Build Configuration, but this felt wrong.
A "Makefile project" doesn't work, because it doesn't support nested folders.
I don't really want to use Solution Folders, because they're not real filesystem folders. This makes them harder to work with. Solution Folders are great when your solution has a large number of projects in it, but I don't think they're great for managing more than a couple of loose files.
How do others do this?
You can put them in solution folder
Right click on solution and select Add->Add existing item - it will create solution folder automatically. You can add solution folder manually via Add->New solution folder
I would recommend simply adding them directly under the solution (or rather under a Documentation folder under the solution). The context menu for the solution title in Solution Explorer gives options to create solution folders and add references to solution files.
Given that you don't want to use solution folders, I see absolutely no point of including them in your solution then. Any method you could use would be rather contrived. It is quite common simply to have a Documentation folder in the root directory of your solution that is not referenced in any way by the solution/project files. (If you like, you can then mirror the directory structure of Documentation using Solution Files.)
I always put a .Documentation folder in each project that I am making the documentation for. It's not as elegant as having a single location for the solution, but it also makes it so that as I use different projects in different solutions and have the documents follow their projects. At compile time I have the build system put all the documentation together in one folder.
Is it a best practice to commit a .sln file to source control? When is it appropriate or inappropriate to do so?
Update
There were several good points made in the answers. Thanks for the responses!
I think it's clear from the other answers that solution files are useful and should be committed, even if they're not used for official builds. They're handy to have for anyone using Visual Studio features like Go To Definition/Declaration.
By default, they don't contain absolute paths or any other machine-specific artifacts. (Unfortunately, some add-in tools don't properly maintain this property, for instance, AMD CodeAnalyst.) If you're careful to use relative paths in your project files (both C++ and C#), they'll be machine-independent too.
Probably the more useful question is: what files should you exclude? Here's the content of my .gitignore file for my VS 2008 projects:
*.suo
*.user
*.ncb
Debug/
Release/
CodeAnalyst/
(The last entry is just for the AMD CodeAnalyst profiler.)
For VS 2010, you should also exclude the following:
ipch/
*.sdf
*.opensdf
Yes -- I think it's always appropriate. User specific settings are in other files.
Yes you should do this. A solution file contains only information about the overall structure of your solution. The information is global to the solution and is likely common to all developers in your project.
It doesn't contain any user specific settings.
You should definitely have it. Beside the reasons other people mentioned, it's needed to make one step build of the whole projects possible.
I generally agree that solution files should be checked in, however, at the company I work for we have done something different. We have a fairly large repository and developers work on different parts of the system from time to time. To support the way we work we would either have one big solution file or several smaller. Both of these have a few shortcomings and require manual work on the developers part. To avoid this, we have made a plug-in that handles all that.
The plug-in let each developer check out a subset of the source tree to work on simply by selecting the relevant projects from the repository. The plugin then generates a solution file and modifies project files on the fly for the given solution. It also handles references. In other words, all the developer has to do is to select the appropriate projects and then the necessary files are generated/modified. This also allows us to customize various other settings to ensure company standards.
Additionally we use the plug-in to support various check-in policies, which generally prevents users from submitting faulty/non-compliant code to the repository.
Yes, things you should commit are:
solution (*.sln),
project files,
all source files,
app config files
build scripts
Things you should not commit are:
solution user options (.suo) files,
build generated files (e.g. using a build script) [Edit:] - only if all necessary build scripts and tools are available under version control (to ensure builds are authentic in cvs history)
Regarding other automatically generated files, there is a separate thread.
Yes, it should be part of the source control.
When ever you add/remove projects from your application, .sln would get updated and it would be good to have it under source control. It would allow you to pull out your application code 2 versions back and directly do a build (if at all required).
Yes, you always want to include the .sln file, it includes the links to all the projects that are in the solution.
Under most circumstances, it's a good idea to commit .sln files to source control.
If your .sln files are generated by another tool (such as CMake) then it's probably inappropriate to put them into source control.
We do because it keeps everything in sync. All the necessary projects are located together, and no one has to worry about missing one. Our build server (Ant Hill Pro) also uses the sln to figure which projects to build for a release.
We usually put all of our solutions files in a solutions directory. This way we separate the solution from the code a little bit, and it's easier to pick out the project I need to work on.
The only case where you would even considder not storing it in source control would be if you had a large solution with many projects which was in source control, and you wanted to create a small solution with some of the projects from the main solution for some private transient requirement.
Yes - Everything used to generate your product should be in source control.
We keep or solution files in TFS Version Control. But since or main solution is really large, most developers have a personal solution containing only what they need. The main solution file is mostly used by the build server.
.slns are the only thing we haven't had problems with in tfs!